The BCS thread and 5 BCS bowls thread are starting to overlap (and are getting really long!) now that the format has been selected. Maybe we can bring those conversations together. I'm NOT trying to start a third thread!

Bullet,
I read where the BCS is planning to come up with new rules for auto bids that would guarentee NO conference a bid. This was done apparently because of political pressure from non-BCS conferences instead of anything against the BE. I Started a seperate thread dealing with this. Other issues would be consolidated here.

the problem that would arise not involving the human polls is the fact that they for so long have been the standard, and without a playoff, they will continue to do so. the public views the polls as the standard, and when the bcs standings dont match up to that standard, especially when both polls agree, people have a hard time seeing the bcs standings as legitimate.

Last edited by accseahawk on Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the public views the polls as the standard, and when the bcs standings dont match up to that standard, especially when both polls agree, people have a hard time seeing the bcs standings as legitimate.

Depends on whom you ask ;D.

The thing the BCS has that the polls do not is consistency. With the computer polls, everybody knows the rules: play a tough schedule and win. The polls present nothing but opinions; the BCS rankings are based on facts.

i have to disagree with you about the computer polls being easy to understand and move up in. you could play a good game and beat a decent team and still move down because some other team beat an even better team than you by a great margin.

the flaw that many have with the human polls is that it is too much of a totem pole system. by that i mean for the most part, as long as you win, you will not drop in the human polls, but when you lose you drop to the bottom of the totem pole. the computers are not afraid to drop you from 1 to 5 after a win whereas that would most likely not happen in the human polls.

everyone realizes that to succeed in the human polls, all you have to do is keep winning and let other teams fall around you, whereas in the computer polls, many different things beyond your control can happen to knock down a couple of notches.

i have to disagree with you about the computer polls being easy to understand and move up in. you could play a good game and beat a decent team and still move down because some other team beat an even better team than you by a great margin.

the flaw that many have with the human polls is that it is too much of a totem pole system. by that i mean for the most part, as long as you win, you will not drop in the human polls, but when you lose you drop to the bottom of the totem pole. the computers are not afraid to drop you from 1 to 5 after a win whereas that would most likely not happen in the human polls.

everyone realizes that to succeed in the human polls, all you have to do is keep winning and let other teams fall around you, whereas in the computer polls, many different things beyond your control can happen to knock down a couple of notches.

Another thing the computers have that the polls don't: Right now, everybody in the country is #1. After all, they all have the same records and strengths of schedule. The preseason polls provide the higher-ranked teams (who are ranked high despite having played zero games--wtf?) an unfair and unnecessary advantage. In the computers, there are no unfair advantages.

Problem with the computer polls (1) the data fed into them is "human" and humans assign the weighted data to each factor to be measured; (2) several polls start with a set ranking prior to feeding in data or games being played for the season; Saragin is suspect in this regard; and (3) they can vary significantly, indicating criteria is inconsistent nor universal.

Human polls involve sports writer (AP); and coaches (USA Today/coaches) -- which may defer to secretaries or subordinates to cast. Many coaches are busy on Saturdays and lack substantive knowledge beyond their own scheduled opponents and fellow conference members. Both polls are open to regional bias and name recognition preferences.

Until a real, multi-team playoff is conducted, the controversy will remain.

The thing the BCS has that the polls do not is consistency. With the computer polls, everybody knows the rules: play a tough schedule and win. The polls present nothing but opinions; the BCS rankings are based on facts.

I say have the polls for entertainment value only.

Sorry Toot but you need a course in statistics here.

Facts yes, however the facts are constructed in a manner that weights some facts greater than other facts. Each computer design picks out given variables that are given more credit. If they were all truly "FACTS" then each computer ranking would be identical...and they are NOT. Computers have as much bias in them as their human pollster counterparts.

In fact the whole BCS calculation process has significant bias in it because it ranks Strength of Schedule along with the human polls, and the computers. Since the computers all have some form of SOS already built in, ranking SOS independently gives it basically a double count.

SOS should be removed the BCS equation because it is already a factor in both the algorithms of the computer rankings, and the minds of the human pollsters. It shouldn't count more than once.

I'm not against the quality win factor though. This is a form of double counting that ensures those that play the top teams get credit for beating the top teams, even if it more than once.

[quote author=daddywags link=board=football&thread=1088609865&start=11#0 date=1089085105]Facts yes, however the facts are constructed in a manner that weights some facts greater than other facts. Each computer design picks out given variables that are given more credit. If they were all truly "FACTS" then each computer ranking would be identical...and they are NOT.

Quote:

Right you are. The weights and proportions of these facts are opinions.[quote]Computers have as much bias in them as their human pollster counterparts.

I don't know if there is any definitive relationship between the words "bias" and "consistency." A computer is biased toward statistics; a pollster is biased toward certain schools. I'll take the computer over the pollster anyday.

Quote:

In fact the whole BCS calculation process has significant bias in it because it ranks Strength of Schedule along with the human polls, and the computers. Since the computers all have some form of SOS already built in, ranking SOS independently gives it basically a double count.

SOS should be removed the BCS equation because it is already a factor in both the algorithms of the computer rankings, and the minds of the human pollsters. It shouldn't count more than once.

I'm not against the quality win factor though. This is a form of double counting that ensures those that play the top teams get credit for beating the top teams, even if it more than once.

8-)

It is my understanding that the SOS and QW portions of the BCS have been removed. Perhaps I am mistaken. I do agree, though, that those two components only skew the standings.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum